 Posted Friday, September 25, 2009 6:25 PM
|
|
|
|
Proud,
I would worry more about yourself then me about being luke warm your not even sure where you belong and are on a computer trying to figure it out. I know what I belive today and everyday. not luke warm. Boiling with is love and by my faith. I think thats what you all are missing faith.
Uh, yeah. You're absolutely right. You're on to me. I don't understand, the validity of everything I say is undermined by my evil character, and I am unsure of my faith and where I belong.
Can you indulge me some questions? Am I correct in my assumption that you are not class taught and have limited exposure to the global Christian Science community?
Do Go Be Man
<><
|
|
|
Posted Sunday, September 27, 2009 11:51 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted Thursday, February 25, 2010 6:45 PM
|
|
|
|
As one who attended several of Mr. Chrisler's bible talks/seminars and knew him personally I speak from experience. His insight of the scriptures is the direct result of studying the writings of Mary Baker Eddy, though Mr. Chrisler more often than not refrained from mentioning Christian Science as he himself was a Christian Scientist. In fact one of the last talks he gave in Seattle about 1988 (or so) was one of the few if only times he mentioned and gave Mrs. Eddy credit for shedding the light on the scriptures which enabled him to expound on the scriptures such as he did. In a sense, some in the CS community view this as an indirect form of plagiarism of Mrs.Eddy's Biblical vision. as it was her revelation which gave impulse to Mr. Chrislers exceptional and concise biblical expositions.
It's worth mentioning most people in these forums on this site appear to have a very vitriolic and caustic slant towards Christian Science and or those who imbibe the writings of Mary Baker Eddy (who constantly turns the reader back to the bible). It's interesting because while Mrs. Eddy is evidently not with us it's remarkable to find that all the objections and protestations and arguments (against Christian Science) being made here have been made already. (Ibid. See Miscellaneous Writings by Mary Baker Eddy)
It's funny as Jesus was accused of being in league with the devil because he did wonders essentially proving what was in the "pudding", so to speak. Of course that incensed the pious religious educators of his time because while they were "professing God and his word he was DOING it. Ironic as Mrs. Eddy appears to have received the same treatment .. Jesus added "These signs shall follow them that believe". Is Mrs. Eddy then a heretic or a charlatan or "in league with lucifer" (as so many of you here assert) and "unchristian" because she "healed the sick, raised the dead, cast out demons and cleansed the lepers" and adhered to the teachings of Christ ??? does any one recall Jesus response to the query and assertion of him casting out devils through beelzebub? Hmmmm lets see .. "If I by the devil cast out cast out demons by what process do you do it ? ..and can a divided kingdom stand ? I suppose Mrs. Eddy after having read that scripture decided it was time to cast out evil in the name of evil ..yah right..
The mention of Dr. Quimby is laughable as Dr. Quimby (hardly a doctor) himself asserted he did not understand how he was able to affect cures and after a time asked Mrs. Eddy (Then Mrs. Glover) to affect the cures for him but not to make herself visible to the patients. She knew what was affecting the cures and she also understood that IF it was cure being affected by mesmerism the ailment was sure to return.
I defy anyone to provide evidence (in her writings) in which she puts herself above Christ or diminishes in anyway the teachings of Jesus without giving him the credit.. let me save you all the trouble .. you won't find any because there isn't a statement in Christian Science on which you could not find scriptural authority. Mrs. Eddy spent pretty much her whole entire life endeavoring to understand the scriptures in a way that make them practical and alive. It might also be instructive since some of you actually read the Bible spend much time looking at the prophecy of Isaiah 53 .. well you might want to look at Isaiah 54 as well.
The reason why so many here wish to spend so much time in diminishing the word and works of a woman who quite frankly adored Christ and the teachings of Jesus to me isn't any different than essentially what jesus himself endured two thousand years ago.
Do Christians diminish Jesus because they quote so often from the writings of Paul who himself healed the sick and established churches ? In fact as we all know Paul was a hit man and "the chiefest among sinners" that being the case I'm sure God would find it hard to find fault with Mrs. Eddy a woman who loved, healed, and saved all in the name of God... not herself.
(from First Church of Christ Scientist and Miscellany) ibid p. 104:17-23 ; p. 107:2-5
TO THE CHRISTIAN WORLD
by Mary Baker Eddy
"It is of utmost concern to the world that men suspend judgement and sentence on the pioneers of Christianity till they know of what and of whom these pioneers speak. A persons ignorance of Christian Science is sufficient reason for his silence on the subject, but what can atone for the vulgar denunciation of which a man knows absolutely nothing ?...
..... Has Christianity improved upon its earlier records, or has it retrograded ? Compare the lives of its professors with those of it's followers at the beginning of the Christian era, and you have the correct answer."
|
|
|
Posted Friday, February 26, 2010 9:38 AM
|
|
|
|
TO THE CHRISTIAN WORLD
by Mary Baker Eddy
"It is of utmost concern to the world that men suspend judgement and sentence on the pioneers of Christianity till they know of what and of whom these pioneers speak. A persons ignorance of Christian Science is sufficient reason for his silence on the subject, but what can atone for the vulgar denunciation of which a man knows absolutely nothing ?...
..... Has Christianity improved upon its earlier records, or has it retrograded ? Compare the lives of its professors with those of it's followers at the beginning of the Christian era, and you have the correct answer."
I think it is probably safe to say that the vast majority of people who post on this site are NOT IGNORANT of Christian Science, and I for one, am so tired of being told that I am. I know CS, I lived it for 30 plus years, I watched numerous family members die of very treatable medical issues. I choose to reject CS BECAUSE I am not ignorant of it.
You do not have to be a Christian Scientist to be a follower of Christ. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I would also venture to say that as a woman, my life as a Christian and a follower of Christ is much better today than it would have been at the beginning of the Christian era!!!!!!
|
|
|
Posted Friday, February 26, 2010 10:45 AM
|
|
|
|
| iKip, As one who attended several of Mr. Chrisler's bible talks/seminars and knew him personally I speak from experience. His insight of the scriptures is the direct result of studying the writings of Mary Baker Eddy As a former personal acquaintance of Chrisler, I'm sure you must also be aware of his rather extensive academic credentials in the field of biblical studies. While Christian Science may have colored his vision to some degree, his more conventional scholarship was the source of his acceptance by the mainstream. He purposely chose not to mention CS in his public 'expositions' in order to preserve his independance.
It's worth mentioning most people in these forums on this site appear to have a very vitriolic and caustic slant towards Christian Science and or those who imbibe the writings of Mary Baker Eddy (who constantly turns the reader back to the bible). Ya think? It is interesting you failed to capitalize the Bible in your very debatable parenthetical premise. Could this small freudian slip expose your own lack of reverance for the Bible? Probably not, but it does raise the issue of what you view as important in your own writing. Eddy cites Biblical texts and gives them her own "inspired" interpretation which sometimes corrupts the original meaning of the text. In effect she is claiming her revelation is superior to what one can gain from a simple reading of the Bible. "Having eyes you see not, having ears you hear not." (see Mark 8:18)
I defy anyone to provide evidence (in her writings) in which she puts herself above Christ or diminishes in anyway the teachings of Jesus without giving him the credit.. How about where she says that Jesus may have healed others but left no definite rule for the practice? Hence the need for her to step in and finish Jesus' work. "in her own words"
Our Master healed the sick, practised Christian healing, and taught the generalities of its divine Principle to his students; but he left no definite rule for demonstrating this Principle of healing and preventing disease. This rule remained to be discovered in Christian Science. Science & Health 147:24
The reason why so many here wish to spend so much time in diminishing the word and works of a woman .....
You are obviously happy with what you read from MBE; but others are not so happy. Others have been seriously harmed by trying to practice what she preached. Please do not try to belittle the experience of so many here who are just as sincere in their posts to this site. You may read Eddy's words, and they may sound wonderful and Biblically-grounded, --so full of love, harmony, and healing. Others have found pain, suffering, and even death from some of those same words you love so much. For some, it's not the words or even the best intentions of Eddy, its the practice and the results of trying to live absolute CS in a very real world.
|
|
|
Posted Friday, February 26, 2010 10:57 PM
|
|
|
|
In an effort to adhere to the Manual of the Mother Church directive I will refrain from publishing qoutes from Mrs. Eddy as much as possible. Also I believe this may constitute a public debate I am trying to balance that with correcting misstatements of CS
Thank You. ~ iKip
Mere Kat,
Pardon the unintentional absence in the capitalization of (B)ible. "Freudian slip" ? Not sure where you derived that inference ..You are either attempting to incite a verbal riot or you're just being cute .. I will ere on side of caution and assume the latter. I will also attempt to be more mindful of my syntax in the not to distant future as these forums tend to be a bit more (stuffy) in there leniency of those who are linguistically challenged.
I think you mistake my contempt for being cold and insensitive for what appear to be misstatements, inaccuracies and misrepresentations of CS. In terms of how arduous and utterly taxing the human condition can be I would cite and reference challenges from my own experience in this post.... but this isn't about me.
Forgive me for being blunt though it appears that you and those that represent your views of CS (because of extenuating circumstances in your personal life) appear to be making Mrs. Eddy, her writings, along with the Christian Science Church a scapegoat for you unfortunate losses. Here in lies the "fly in the ointment" so to speak.
What of the multitudes of persons who have made and demonstrated the healing and saving power of God through application and reliance on prayer in Christian Science? It appears you feel robbed because you relied on something or felt you were lied to or mislead because things didn't turn out the way you expected. Who that is human hasn't experienced this? Mrs. Eddy herself knew what loss felt like and more than once but constantly turned to God for comfort as we all must. Jesus himself did not affect cures with everyone who he encountered that much we know yet you'd be hard pressed to find a Christian accusing Jesus of being a liar because he failed to effect a cure with all whom he encountered. Mrs. Eddy explains that when a case hadn't yielded it was usually due to the "tenacity" of evil. I'm paraphrasing but i believe that is in the spirit of what she says. I know this analogy is going to appear trite so indulge me .. Mrs. Eddy points out that just because we fail to solve a problem does not disprove that the problem can't be solved. I believe it is to the degree of what we are able to grasp of the Divine. .Which leads me to my next point.
More people have "died" in the name of "science" than ever have in Christian Science and that is a statistical fact. I'm not a gambling man but if it comes down to relying on God or on man I know which side I'll be on. I'll choose CS till the cows come home thank you very much. Thing is, here you see doctors have unlimited money, resources etc. yet when they are unable to affect a cure they get a pass and they say "we did all we could" .. ok so you go to the hospital and and they poke this stab that plunge this etc etc. and you walk away a new man ?? .. not quite.. Paul whom Mrs. Eddy often quotes expresses the idea that as long as we are comfortable in the flesh we cannot please God.. to be absent from the body not at home in it .. a message most Christian's appear to ignore. Going to the hospital is nothing more than an exercise in preserving the flesh man which Paul reminds us cannot possibly please God.. I didn't say it .. he did. Am I suggesting abandoning personal hygiene? please, I'm radical in my views but not impractical. The carnal mind is enmity against God i.e. the mind consumed with the flesh (greek:sartes) and all the etc's of the flesh is Gods enemy this is precisely the point CS makes. So the paradox is how do we get out when there doesn't appear to be a way? I suppose the hospital is the way to salvation..??? I find it amusing as the medical symbol of the caduceus (Serpents coiled around the staff) is what people seek for refuge from bodily ills. Does anyone here recall the imperative in the book of James chapter 5 verse 14 "Is any sick among you? let him call for the elders of the church; and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord:" Does it say in there anywhere to seek out a physician ? I don't see it. Yet Mrs. Eddy provides that if a person felt that he needed to seek relief in any other than Spiritual means they were free to do so. I believe that gets overlooked quite a bit.
""Having eyes you see not, having ears you hear not." (see Mark 8:18)" well yah no disagreement there.
Mere Kat:
"In effect she is claiming her revelation is superior to what one can gain from a simple reading of the Bible."
Nice try .. but that again is a misstatement. "a simple reading of the Bible" would never have yielded a book such as "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy" that is just plain naive.... and if it were the case it would have been written a long time ago.. it wasn't and for good reason. It was a book preserved for the time in which (we) live, a book preserved until the time of the end.
If you were to read John Wycliff's translation the passage in Luke 1:77 "To give knowledge of salvation unto his people by the remission of their sins,"
Wycliffs translation reads "To give science and health unto his people"
Greek:gnosis:science:knowledge Greek:Soterien:health
It's encouraging by your admission that it was her revelation (and not someone else's) a step closer understanding the Truth.And
Finally back to our original point. Mr Chrisler.
Mere Kat: "Christian Science may have colored his vision to some degree, his more conventional scholarship was the source of his acceptance by the mainstream. He purposely chose not to mention CS in his public 'expositions' in order to preserve his independence."
Ummmm well no that is another misconception.. you are right in that Mr. Chrisler with his Harvard degree and credentials had a great deal of influence in the scholastic community though to save face he would refrain from identifying himself as a Christian Scientist because the mention of it made the hair stand up on the backs of all the scholastic aficionados and it isn't a term that most of the public was comfortable with. It had nothing to do with being "independent" as you assert. "and that".. as Paul Harvy would say.. "is the rest of the story."
As for "his vision being colored to some degree" I have the utmost respect for Mr. Chrisler but all of his biblical thesis and I mean ALL of it would not have been possible were it not for the works and writings of Mrs. Eddy. She pioneered the entire platform from which Mr. Chrislers "colored" expositions and delineations of scripture succeeded. That Mr. Chrisler publicly admitted in one of his last seminars of which I attended in Seattle over 20 years ago something he had never done in all his years as a Lecturer.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, February 27, 2010 6:57 AM
|
|
|
|
Dear iKep
More people have "died" in the name of "science" than ever have in Christian Science and that is a statistical fact. When I read this, I had to chuckle. When you make such a bold statement, could you please provide the supporting documentation, clinical study, etc? In fact, statistically, Christian Scientists die at a younger age than their peers of other religious groups. Two peer reviewed studies were published to support this claim.
Simpson WF. Comparative longevity in a college cohort of Christian Scientists. JAMA 262:1657-1658, 1989.
Comparative mortality of two college groups. CDC Mortality and Morbidity Weekly Report 40:579-582, 1991.
The reality is that whether you choose medicine or Christian Science, everyone will physically die. I personally want to live as long as I am enjoying a good quality life. I hope to see grandchildren and great grandchildren. Statistically I probably will whereas you will be gone at a younger age. To some degree this may be based on your personal choice. Regardless, when my time comes, I by no means believe that God will discriminate against me for choosing medicine. Incidentally, the women who cared for Jesus while he was on the cross treated him with myrrh for the pain. Do you believe that God rejected or admonished Jesus for using medicine to kill the pain?
Spiritually, we live on forever. I believe that most Christians subscribe to this thought and I would imagine that other religions believe this as well. So does medicine vs prayer make one person more pleasing to God than another? I can't imagine. I think we all believe that God loves us unconditionally. What it all boils down to is whether you want to live a long life with the assistance of medical support or are you willing to choose prayer and perhaps die at a younger age? Yes, prayer can help, but in reading the Christian Science forum, there are lots of people who are suffering from pain and other physical ailments and are wondering why they can't find relief and beating themselves up for not having a good understanding of God that will yield a healing. I don't think God wants us to suffer or be guilted into believing that it's the individuals fault for not healing, because it's never Christian Science. As a non-Christian Science, I can't wrap my head around this guilt thing, but I know lots of CSers who suffer from it and it's SAD and so unneccesary.
So I will be waiting to see your documentation that supports your statistical proof of medicine vs prayer. In the meantime, I will be enjoying my life with my Biblical understanding and serving God the way I believe he wants me to serve him and of course reverring Jesus for teaching us about salvation.
Respectfully,
I don't need MBE and S&H to understand God's love
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, February 27, 2010 9:31 AM
|
|
|
|
Thanks for the apparent perhaps deliberate misspelling of the screen name, "iKep"
If you had a "chuckle" then we're on the right path ... I always enjoy knowing that i could bring a smile to someone 
... and I have to thank you for pointing out the ever so accurate fatality stats on Christian Scientist from the CDC. Since Christian Scientist constitutes an en ever so insignificant portion of the population it is fundamentally academic that they would be skewed to a slant from one (of many) organizations that is already biased against the faith to begin with... but i digress. Do they account for new attendees ? or with those only on the church rosters? please if you could provide access to that information than lets have an fair representation of the facts.
Q: "Do you believe that God rejected or admonished Jesus for using medicine to kill the pain?"
A: It seems as though you are attempting to arrive at an answer assuming God is like a referee keeping some sort of score card. I don't know wether this is deliberate or not; however as a Christian and one who is striving to imbibe the teachings of Jesus he is obviously the standard barer so if he is the one setting the example I can think of few who actually would adhere to that standard though I have and do unequivocally. You see the whole purpose here is to have dominion over the flesh not being subservient to it i.e. catering to the body. Doctoring the flesh (to me) is not exercising the power and dominion God gave yet isn't this what Christians are supposed to be doing ? or did I miss something there ?
As for your comments about sticking around for family and such ..
.. you obviously have a great deal of affection for your family as I do, and who that is human doesn't feel the deep love for their family and fears the loss of a loved one. If we are to take Jesus at his word, which I will assume you do, .. lets look at the passage from Matt 10:37 "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Well if you ask me that would make most would be "Christian's" want pack up and say thanks but no thanks .. see yah ! and that appears to be essentially what you have said.
Since Jesus sets the bar for what constitutes a "follower" the bar appears to be set too high for the person who wishes to be "comfortable" in the human experience or the (flesh) body. Running to the caduceus instead of the cross is not "practicing what we preach" but merely surrendering because we''re afraid to let go. Then asking God to forgive us while being afraid to do what he asks. Its kinda of like saying "I 'm sorry I stole that money but I can't help it, I have to keep stealing".... not the best analogy but i think speaks to the point.
The Bible states "God is no respecter of persons" yes I believe he Loves all but there have been requirements set forth by Jesus to prove that we also Love him. We are either meeting those requirements or turning away from them.
Everyone here has the right to choose for themselves what lifestyle the wish to live. That is having freedom of choice... and I whole heartedly endorse that. I would not ask you to give up your methods with which to seek relief .. but if you are trying justify the methods with which you choose and then call it "Christian" I would say ... well you have the right to think that too ;-)
As for your feeling "guilted" about something .. the fact that you feel guilt is in no small part unintentional from this end. Feeling guilt because you have chosen to spare with those of us who actually know a thing or two about the subject means that your moral compass is still functioning. You feel offended or guilt ? Welcome to the human experience
"I don't need MBE and S&H to understand God's love" ...... thats kind of like saying you don't need Einstein to understand the theory of relativity.
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, February 27, 2010 11:54 AM
|
|
|
|
iKip (2/27/2010)[/b]
Thanks for the apparent perhaps deliberate misspelling of the screen name, "iKep"
The misspelling of your name was not intentional, I just forgot how you spelled it when I went to respond to your post.
If you had a "chuckle" then we're on the right path ... I always enjoy knowing that i could bring a smile to someone
I don't take life so seriously so yes, I enjoy a good chuckle, laugh and even gaffaw.
... and I have to thank you for pointing out the ever so accurate fatality stats on Christian Scientist from the CDC. Since Christian Scientist constitutes an en ever so insignificant portion of the population it is fundamentally academic that they would be skewed to a slant from one (of many) organizations that is already biased against the faith to begin with... but i digress. Do they account for new attendees ? or with those only on the church rosters? please if you could provide access to that information than lets have an fair representation of the facts.
You're right, CS does constitute an ever so insignificant portion of the population, however in order to do the study and show statistical significance, there had to be enough people in the study to report on. So overall size of the religion does not matter. Additionally, it doesn't matter if the study includes new attendees or those on the roster. You can find the studies on the internet by googling the information I provided. If you think about however, if CS is superior in healing to medicine as you claim, then the studies should show that CSers outlive non-CSers. If that were the case, I would take a second look at CS.
Q: "Do you believe that God rejected or admonished Jesus for using medicine to kill the pain?"
A: It seems as though you are attempting to arrive at an answer assuming God is like a referee keeping some sort of score card. I don't know wether this is deliberate or not; however as a Christian and one who is striving to imbibe the teachings of Jesus he is obviously the standard barer so if he is the one setting the example I can think of few who actually would adhere to that standard though I have and do unequivocally. You see the whole purpose here is to have dominion over the flesh not being subservient to it i.e. catering to the body. Doctoring the flesh (to me) is not exercising the power and dominion God gave yet isn't this what Christians are supposed to be doing ? or did I miss something there ?
I never thought for a moment that God acts as a referee or keeps scores, etc. He loves Jesus the same regardless just like he loves me or you.
As for your comments about sticking around for family and such ..
.. you obviously have a great deal of affection for your family as I do, and who that is human doesn't feel the deep love for their family and fears the loss of a loved one. If we are to take Jesus at his word, which I will assume you do, .. lets look at the passage from Matt 10:37 "He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." Well if you ask me that would make most would be "Christian's" want pack up and say thanks but no thanks .. see yah ! and that appears to be essentially what you have said.
I think you're making a huge assumption that I love God less than my father or mother or anyone else. And you know what they say when you assume?.....
Since Jesus sets the bar for what constitutes a "follower" the bar appears to be set too high for the person who wishes to be "comfortable" in the human experience or the (flesh) body. Running to the caduceus instead of the cross is not "practicing what we preach" but merely surrendering because we''re afraid to let go. Then asking God to forgive us while being afraid to do what he asks. Its kinda of like saying "I 'm sorry I stole that money but I can't help it, I have to keep stealing".... not the best analogy but i think speaks to the point.
From my perspective, this is where CSers interpretation of mortals totally differs from mine. I believe God created us both spiritually and physically. My faith in God takes care of my spiritual being and my physican takes care of my physical being. Your above analogy only works if you subscribe to Christian Science and I don't.
The Bible states "God is no respecter of persons" yes I believe he Loves all but there have been requirements set forth by Jesus to prove that we also Love him. We are either meeting those requirements or turning away from them.
Yes, there are requirements and then there are requirements. MBE's requirements simply put are her requirements and interpretation of those requirements. Please point out in the Bible where it explcitedly says, "thou shall not see a doctor." Incidentally, Luke was the beloved physician. I'm sure if there was a commandment that said "thou shall not see a physician" he may not have become a disciple. Luke was also Paul's travel companion and we know that Paul had an ailment that was never healed. Can you imagine Luke tending to Paul? I certainly can.
Everyone here has the right to choose for themselves what lifestyle the wish to live. That is having freedom of choice... and I whole heartedly endorse that. I would not ask you to give up your methods with which to seek relief .. but if you are trying justify the methods with which you choose and then call it "Christian" I would say ... well you have the right to think that too ;-)
Thank and I do have that right.
As for your feeling "guilted" about something .. the fact that you feel guilt is in no small part unintentional from this end. Feeling guilt because you have chosen to spare with those of us who actually know a thing or two about the subject means that your moral compass is still functioning. You feel offended or guilt ? Welcome to the human experience
Personally, I don't feel guilty about CS and the fact that some CSers are unable to achieve a healing. I wasn't brought up in the CS church and have not experienced what I perceive as harm/damage. Sorry if that sounds harsh. But many family members who have left CS have expressed this feeling of guilt to me along with the damage that family members have experienced. I've never heard this type of complaint from my Protestant friends. It's a very strange complain and no one that I know outside of CS can even relate to this when I explain it.
"I don't need MBE and S&H to understand God's love" ...... thats kind of like saying you don't need Einstein to understand the theory of relativity.
Until I married my husband, I had never heard of MBE and S&H and I was as happy as can be, loved God and serve my church family. Since then, I have read S&H, her biography by Gillian Gill and few books written by folks like Linda. Based on all I've read and what I have experienced within my husband's family (very dysfunctional by the way), I believe my Christian upbringing has served me well and I wouldn't trade it for all the tea in China. I have read the Bible and do know and understand God's love. (No S&H was required to grasp the spiritual interpretations).
What I find terribly irratating however, is that my CS family members think I'm ignorant since I don't embrace CS and that I could not possibly understand it since I haven't joined the Cult so to speak. Let me tell you that CS is not rocket science. I'm sure you're thinking to yourself, "She just doesn't get it." Just because someone chooses not to drink the cool aid, it doesn't mean they don't understand it. Rather, I think it's a convenient and arrogant excuse on the part of CSers to say and impose this on those of us who do not agree with it but find a better way for ourselves. My own minister, a very intelligent man, understands CS and he's not signing up to become a convert either. Besides, if CS is all about unconditional love, this judging of one another that I experience by my CS family members is such a contradiction of the teachings of MBE. Personally, I think most of this arrogant behavior has to do with the CSers own insecurity about their religion. Because at the end of the day, if you don't heal, you'll be looked at as someone who just doesn't understand and it's a personal reflection on you...not the religion. Boy oh boy, that is not what my God would impose on his followers. Hey, if you want to buy into this, go for it.
So again, I close by signing
I don't need MBE and S&H to understand God's love
|
|
|
Posted Saturday, February 27, 2010 2:49 PM
|
|
|
|
| iKip, Forgive me for being blunt though it appears that you and those that represent your views of CS (because of extenuating circumstances in your personal life) appear to be making Mrs. Eddy, her writings, along with the Christian Science Church a scapegoat for you unfortunate losses. Here in lies the "fly in the ointment" so to speak. No need for forgiveness here; no offense was taken. Not everything mentioned here is an attack on Mary Baker Eddy or the CS Church. People can and do have legitimate criticisms of Eddy and Christain Science. Remember Eddy wrote in the preface to S&H, "The time for thinkers has come...." In truth, there is no fly. I do appreciate your generally civil tone in these discourses. I understand your desire to right what you perceive as the wrongs attributed to your chosen religion. But I am not sure you are correctly reading the context of many of the posts here. Many of us are former Christian Scientists; many of us felt the same way you do now about the truth as represented by Mary Baker Eddy in Science & Health. Many of us faithfully served as readers, board members, practitioners, and COPs. We have seen CS at its best. But in the end we have also seen and recognized CS at its very worst. You cannot blame what many of us now see as important to our individual spiritual growth on "extenuating circumstances" in our personal lives. "Freudian slip" ? Not sure where you derived that inference ..You are either attempting to incite a verbal riot or you're just being cute .. I will ere on side of caution and assume the latter. I will also attempt to be more mindful of my syntax in the not to distant future as these forums tend to be a bit more (stuffy) in there leniency of those who are linguistically challenged.
I'm glad you have sense of humor. But my, my, aren't we just a wee bit over sensitive! Me thinks thou doth protest too much. A Freudian slip is a term used to describe a mistake that is thought to occur due to some unconscious wish, conflict, or train of thought. In this case, it was my lighthearted attempt to point out your lack of proper respect and attention to detail when making reference to the most important book you will ever read, the Bible. I could not but chuckle at your defense as well, when you avowed your intention to to be more mindful of syntax, and then misused the word "to" in the phrase "not too distant" (Syntactically this requires an adjective, 'too' rather than the preposition, 'to'; but that's enough English 101 for this forum.)
What of the multitudes of persons who have made and demonstrated the healing and saving power of God through application and reliance on prayer in Christian Science? You are certainly entitled to your own opinion on this topic. Indeed, I know God heals us, but I don't believe that healing has anything to do with CS practice. More people have "died" in the name of "science" than ever have in Christian Science and that is a statistical fact. You are making the exact same mistake you attribute to others here. This is a completely false statement which distorts the truth. Everyone dies. Statistically speaking, there are not very many Christian Scientists around and those numbers continue to shrink. Many people have died in the name of Christian Science who could have lived much longer had they been under proper medical care. I'm not a gambling man but if it comes down to relying on God or on man I know which side I'll be on. I'll choose CS till the cows come home thank you very much. And I choose to pray and rely on God while availing myself of all of his good graces, --including the good that doctors, nurses, and medicine that God has provided for all of us.
Nice try .. but that again is a misstatement. "a simple reading of the Bible" would never have yielded a book such as "Science and Health with Key to the Scriptures by Mary Baker Eddy" that is just plain naive....
See II Cor 11:3
"But I fear, lest by any means, as the serpent beguiled Eve through his subtilty, so your minds should be corrupted from the simplicity that is in Christ."And, you asked for an example:
I defy anyone to provide evidence (in her writings) in which she puts herself above Christ or diminishes in anyway the teachings of Jesus without giving him the credit.. There is no doubt to the unbiased reader that here Eddy did put herself above Christ by claiming that she provided the definitive rule for healing while Jesus only gave us "generalities" of the divine Principle of Christian healing. Finally back to our original point. Mr Chrisler. Ummmm well no that is another misconception.. Nice try, but your explanation of Chrisler's "face saving" is exactly what I called preserving his independence from Christian Science in the eyes of the public. It is true that if the general public associated him with CS, his continued success and popularity with the mainstream would have been threatened. In the end, it no longer mattered. In light of all you have posted here, I'm curious as to your thoughts on one of the key ideas in this thread: B Cobbey Crisler, died at 55 of a heart attack in 1988. He was pretty young, and conceivably could have continued his good works, researching and lecturing for many more decades had he been under proper medical care. This is at the heart of what so many object to in the practice of CS. Peace
|
|
|
|